Respiratory disease mortality in the United Kingdom compared with EU15+ countries in 1985-2015: observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare age standardised death rates for respiratory disease mortality between the United Kingdom and other countries with similar health system performance. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: World Health Organization Mortality Database, 1985-2015. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of the UK, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Australia, Canada, the United States, and Norway (also known as EU15+ countries). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality from all respiratory disease and infectious, neoplastic, interstitial, obstructive, and other respiratory disease. Differences between countries were tested over time by mixed effect regression models, and trends in subcategories of respiratory related diseases assessed by a locally weighted scatter plot smoother. RESULTS: Between 1985 and 2015, overall mortality from respiratory disease in the UK and EU15+ countries decreased for men and remained static for women. In the UK, the age standardised death rate (deaths per 100 000 people) for respiratory disease mortality in the UK fell from 151 to 89 for men and changed from 67 to 68 for women. In EU15+ countries, the corresponding changes were from 108 to 69 for men and from 35 to 37 in women. The UK had higher mortality than most EU15+ countries for obstructive, interstitial, and infectious subcategories of respiratory disease in both men and women. CONCLUSION: Mortality from overall respiratory disease was higher in the UK than in EU15+ countries between 1985 and 2015. Mortality was reduced in men, but remained the same in women. Mortality from obstructive, interstitial, and infectious respiratory disease was higher in the UK than in EU15+ countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".